PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (AIR-RAID WARNINGS)

Order (24th November, 1943) relative thereto read, and suspended until the House otherwise order.—[Mr. Eden.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEK GUERRILLA FORCES (SUPPLIES)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether munitions and money are still being supplied to the E.A.M. movement in Greece and to the military organisations under its control.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir; the supplies are sent to the E.L.A.S. guerrilla forces, which form the military branch of E.A.M.

Mr. Bartlett: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will maintain his policy of supplying arms to any of these armies that are fighting?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; that is our policy, but I am none the less anxious, as I understand the whole House is, that the effort of Monsieur Papandreou, the present Greek Prime Minister, to unite all parties in his Government, should receive the fullest support.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER (JAPANESE OFFICIALS)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position with regard to the Japanese Consul-General and his staff in Tangier; and whether he is satisfied that their presence is not prejudicial to military operations of the United Nations' Forces.

Mr. Eden: There is not and has never been any Japanese Consulate in Tangier. As I informed the House on 17th May, a member of the staff of the Japanese Embassy at Madrid, who had been residing in Tangier in recent months, was requested by the Spanish Government to leave Tangier for Spain, which he did on 29th May. There are, therefore, no Japanese officials in Tangier and the second part of the Question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOMBS (PAPAL ATTITUDE)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct His Majesty's Minister to the Holy See to bring to the attention of his Holiness the Pope the use by the Germans of pilotless aircraft and to express the hope that his Holiness may feel moved to condemn this use of an undiscriminating engine of war.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. His Holiness the Pope is no doubt already aware of the use which is at present being made by the Germans of these pilotless aircraft.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that the Pope has, in the past, expressed general condemnation of indiscriminate warfare against civilians? Could it not be put to him respectfully that condemnation by him of this particularly barbarous weapon would carry great weight with the German Catholic hierarchy and, through them, with their flocks?

Mr. Eden: That is a matter for the Pope himself. I do not propose to make any request of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONARCHY, ITALY (CONTINUANCE)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent pressure has been brought to bear on the Bonomi Government, either by His Majesty's Government acting alone or in collaboration with the U.S.A. Government, with the object of influencing them towards the maintenance of the monarchical system in Italy.

Mr. Eden: No pressure has been brought to bear on the Bonomi Government by the Allied Governments with the object of influencing them towards the maintenance of the monarchical system in


Italy. It is, however, the opinion of the Governments represented on the Advisory Council for Italy that the question of the continuance of the monarchy in Italy cannot be decided until Italy has been liberated and the whole Italian people is in a position to express its views. This opinion was conveyed to the Bonomi Government and has been accepted by it.

Mr. Bellenger: Then we may assume from that answer that, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they allow complete freedom to the properly constituted Government of Italy to decide their own Constitution?

Mr. Eden: Not only His Majesty's Government, but what the Advisory Council—which consists of the Allies mainly concerned—said was that, in their view, this question should be settled when the whole of Italy has been freed, and that view has been accepted by the Italian Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SAMPLES FAIR, BARCELONA

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any diplomatic representative of Great Britain attended the official opening of the International Samples Fair recently held at Barcelona; how many British firms exhibited there; what commodities were exhibited by them; and how British representation at this fair compared with that of the United States, neutral and enemy countries.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government were represented by Mr. Consul Vibert, who was at that time in charge of His Majesty's Consulate General. No British firms exhibited at the Fair. The only foreign countries which participated were the United States of America, Sweden, Switzerland and Chile.

Mr. de Rothschild: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us why no British firm was there? Does he realise that the United States Ambassador went there in state and was at the opening of this fair? Does it not look uncommonly as if Uncle Sam had slipped a fast one over the simpler Sam?

Mr. Eden: I will leave my hon. Friend to draw his own conclusions, but I can

tell him that this matter was considered by the Department concerned, and in view of the total absorption of British industry in matters connected with the war, we did not think we could usefully participate in this affair at this time.

Mr. Molson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the importance of preserving our goodwill with a view to exporting after the war?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I do. That is precisely why we examined this question with a desire to do something about it——

Mr. Stokes: And did nothing.

Mr. Eden: —and we concluded—with, I hope, the hon. Gentleman's endorsement —that the war must come first.

Mr. A. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman not notice the immense sums of money spent by firms in this country on preserving goodwill?

Mr. Eden: I do not underrate at all the importance of goodwill and, wherever we can, we take action. In this particular instance we felt, on balance, unable to do it, but I would not like the House to think this matter was not considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Parliamentary Franchise (Register)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Air what information is now to hand regarding the number of officers and men in the R.A.F. who have applied for registration for the Parliamentary franchise as a result of the promised inquiry.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have received reports of the results at a number of units but as I should like to give the House a representative picture I would prefer to wait a little longer before making a statement.

Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave us fairly full information about a week ago? Is he not rather mortified to be so behind the Army in this matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I have some reason to hope that when I can present the picture it will not be found at all a mortifying one.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his own officers are doing their best to facilitate this arrangement?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that I am satisfied that that is so.

Officers (Clothing Coupons)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many clothing coupons are allowed to officers per year for the renewal of uniform, etc.; and of these how many may be used for the purpose of civilian clothing.

Sir A. Sinclair: R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. officers receive forty-four clothing coupons in the first year of commissioned service and eighty-eight in each subsequent year for the maintenance of uniform and other clothing. Twenty-one of these coupons may be used for the purchase of certain specified articles of civilian clothing which are not worn with uniform.

Mr. Burke: Will the Minister make that concession available to other ranks as well?

Sir A. Sinclair: I should require notice of that question.

Motor Car Accident (Compensation)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Ministry is now prepared to accept general responsibility for making a reasonable compensation to Miss Anette Mills in relation to a motor-car accident, of which he has been given particulars in correspondence.

Sir A. Sinclair: As the hon. Member has been informed, the Air Ministry accepts financial responsibility for any legal liability which attaches to the driver of the Service vehicle. The question whether there is such a legal liability would, in the absence of a settlement between the parties, be decided by the courts.

Sir R. Acland: Does that mean that the step which this lady has to take is to bring a legal action against an officer who regrettably is now missing? Would it not really be right for the Air Ministry to accept liability for this accident, and arrive at a satisfactory settlement?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have no reason to suppose there will not be a settlement between the parties.

Sir R. Acland: If there is an early settlement, that will be satisfactory, otherwise I will seek to raise this matter on a suitable occasion, because it has been dragging on for a very long time.

Northern Ireland (Civilian Employees)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the criticism by one of the Ulster resident magistrates regarding the employment of a man at an air base in Northern Ireland who had no residence permit, he will, in the interests of public security, give instructions that in future no one is to be employed at any air base in Northern Ireland until he produces his residence permit and identity card.

Sir A. Sinclair: Civilians employed at R.A.F. Stations in Northern Ireland are required to hold a National Registration identity card and, where applicable, a residence permit.

Dr. Little: I sent my right hon. Friend a copy of the remarks of the resident magistrate, which caused a sensation in Ulster and were brought to my notice and the notice of the Air Ministry. There never was anything like it said before, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will make an inquiry into the whole thing and issue regulations.

Personnel, Iceland (Local Leave)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Air why local leave has not been allowed for personnel of the R.A.F. stationed in Iceland.

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no ban on local leave in Iceland. In practice, few applications are made because of the absence of suitable facilities for leave in Iceland.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of men serving in the R.A.F. in Iceland are under the impression that it is banned?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I was not aware of that. If my hon. Friend can give me any particulars about it, I will gladly look into the matter.

Damaged Bicycle (Claim)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps were taken, and on what dates, to examine the claim brought to his notice by letter, dated 30th


May, from the hon. Member for the Tam-worth Division, for damages to a bicycle by a R.A.F. vehicle at Sutton Coldfield on 10th August, 1943, liability for which was not disputed; and how long the damaged bicycle was immobilised pending inspection by the Claims Commission.

Sir A. Sinclair: The first intimation of a claim for compensation for the damaged bicycle was received on 28th April, 1944, when the claimant stated that she had purchased another bicycle. The claim was passed to the Claims Commission who, after correspondence, notified the claimant that the bicycle would be inspected. This inspection took place on 12th June. An immediate inspection would have involved a special journey by road of over 50 miles. Payment of agreed compensation was made on 26th June.

Sir J. Mellor: As my right hon. Friend said in his letter of 9th June that this claim was being given priority, could he say how long it takes to deal with a claim that is not given priority?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. This lady had informed us that she had purchased another bicycle and it would have required a 5o mile journey to make a special inspection of the old bicycle. If the story was a little longer than it should have been, at least it had a happy ending.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Air Ministry quite incapable of getting somebody locally to inspect the bicycle? Would any business firm behave with such folly?

Sir A. Sinclair: This bicycle had to be inspected, not by the Air Ministry but by the Inspector of the Claims Commission.

Sir H. Williams: Surely they could get a local policeman or anyone else to do it?

Flying Bombs (Launching Sites)

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the launching sections of robot aeroplanes have been located from the air; and whether any details of the method of launching these flying bombs have been obtained.

Sir A. Sinclair: A considerable number of launching sites have been located and destroyed. This process is continuing. It would not be in the public

interest to disclose the extent of our information about methods of launching.

Sir M. Sueter: Could not the Secretary of State give full information to the public about this, because there is no secrecy about where the stations are located, on the coast or inland? Surely we ought to have the fullest information.

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I think it is very important that the Germans should not know the extent of our information, or the nature of our defence against this weapon.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Prisoners' Aid Societies

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many African Colonies a Prisoners' Aid Society has been appointed or is established.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Prisoners' Aid Societies exist in Kenya, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar and the formation of such a society is at present under consideration by the Government of the Gold Coast.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the Governors to the desirability of establishing a Prisoners' Aid Society in each Colony?

Colonel Stanley: I would not like it to be thought that because there is not a Prisoners' Aid Society in all Colonies steps are not taken for the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the Governors to the matter?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the latest available figures of the number of cases of corporal punishment inflicted on Africans for legal offences committed in Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika; and what steps have now been taken in these and other African Colonies to reduce the number of offences involving this form of punishment.

Colonel Stanley: As I indicated to the hon. Member on 14th June, the most recent figures available are those for 1938. In that year the totals for the three Territories mentioned were 375, 50 and 174. I am asking the Governors concerned for more up-to-date information which I will send to the hon. Member. It was suggested to Colonial Governments in 1939, and again in 1940, that the number of offences for which corporal punishment might be awarded should be reduced. Several African Colonies have since that date amended their legislation in order to reduce the number of offences. Several of the African Colonies have also enacted ordinances establishing a system of probation.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it be possible to give hon. Members of the House particulars of cases of corporal punishment in the East African Colonies?

Colonel Stanley: I will let the hon. Member know when I have the information, and perhaps he will then put another Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. John Dugdale: Would the Minister issue an instruction that only those offences punishable by corporal punishment in this country, will be so punished in the Colonies?

Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Soldiers' Relatives (Allowances, Payment)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many travelling pay vans are at present operating in the Colonies of Nigeria and Gold Coast for the purpose of the payment of family remittances and separation allowances to relatives of serving soldiers.

Colonel Stanley: Three travelling pay vans are at present operating in the Gold Coast to supplement the normal system of payment of allowances by district treasuries and by district commissioners, both in their stations and on tour. Travelling pay vans are not employed in Nigeria, where payment is made at about 150 centres widely distributed throughout the territory.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the making of these payments takes up undue time of the district commissioners? Will he consider the establishment of more travelling pay vans?

Colonel Stanley: There is certainly a great burden on the already over-burdened officers.

Organisations (Memorial)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration he has given to the memorial presented to him on his visit to the West Coast of Africa last year by organisations including the National Congress of British West Africa, the Ratepayers' Association and the West African Youth League; and what steps he proposes to take to implement the concrete proposals made in the Memorial.

Colonel Stanley: I have given careful consideration to the memorial referred to by the hon. Member and I have communicated with the Governor of Sierra Leone with a view to a full reply being returned to the petitioners on my behalf. I will ask the Governor for a copy of the reply actually sent and forward it to the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very interesting and valuable character of the memorial, would the Minister consider placing a copy in the Library?

Colonel Stanley: It is certainly long and interesting. The first item, which might appeal to the hon. Member, was a 'proposal that the control and ownership of minerals should be transferred from the Government back to private hands.

Mr. Gallaeher: rose.

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question; the hon. Member is too late.

BRITISH HONDURAS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to give further information with regard to measures which are being taken to deal with unemployment in British Honduras, both as regards internal employment for returned foresters and


others and recruitment for work in the U.S.A.

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. Employment was found on a main road under construction for the majority of the returned foresters, and for others in the neighbourhood of Belize who applied for work. In one district there was some difficulty in providing for 47 men, including foresters, who registered for work, but arrangements which were in progress for providing work have now been abandoned because of the opening of recruiting for the United States. Recruiting for labourers for the United States began on 6th June and nearly 700 applications had been received by the end of that week. It is hoped to complete recruitment by 28th June but movement of workers to the United States, I am informed, may be somewhat retarded owing to lack of shipping.

Mr. Harvey: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether road work will be continued, as required by the conditions of employment?

Colonel Stanley: It depends on the number of people seeking work.

MAURITIUS (DISTURBANCES, REPORT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Commission inquiring into disturbances in Mauritius last year will be available.

Colonel Stanley: The report has been received and arrangements are being made for it to be printed in this country. It will be published as soon as printed copies have reached Mauritius.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it a full report?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

RAILWAYS (CONTROL AGREEMENT)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered the recent representations from the railway companies on behalf of their junior stockholders that the financial provisions

of the existing Control Agreement should be revised; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. My noble Friend has met *the Chairmen of the four railway companies. They presented to him the views expressed by their proprietors in favour of a review of the financial terms of the Railway Control Agreement, and they suggested that the extension of the area of the war at the end of 1941 constituted a case far revision. They asked for an increase in the guaranteed annual payment and for some adjustment to cover intensified user of maintainable assets. In reply my noble Friend has pointed out that the revised arrangement made in 1941 relieved the railways of uncertainty as to the effects of the war upon their net revenues and he has stated that the Government are unable to regard the extension of the war area as a reason for revision or to agree to any increase in the amount of the fixed annual payments. The Control Agreement itself enables an allowance, over and above the basic figure for maintenance, to be made for abnormal wear and tear of maintainable assets, if such allowance is shown to be justified, and my noble Friend has offered to examine this matter.

Sir J. Mellor: As the Control Agreement deprives some of the junior stockholders of all possibility of dividends for the duration of the war and for one year thereafter, is it fair to insist upon this financial arrangement continuing indefinitely?

Sir Irving Albery: Will His Majesty's Government, in view of the very important war services rendered by the railway companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "And by the men."]—and by the men, treat them as fairly as other war industries which, in many cases, are allowed to earn profits of 10 to 12 per cent.?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot now argue the merits of the revised Control Agreement but the Government have always held that it was fair and just.

Mr. Watkins: Is not the trouble mentioned in the Question due to the overcapitalisation of the railways. If their capital structure was reformed, is it not a fact that this trouble would not arise?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Irish Workers, Great Britain (Censorship)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Information whether the correspondence of agricultural workers from Eire who are temporarily employed in Great Britain is subject to censorship.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir, all correspondence between Great Britain and Eire is subject to censorship.

Members of Parliament (Fees)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information how many of those hon. Members who have broadcast for the B.B.C. since the outbreak of war have refused to accept the normal fees for so doing.

Mr. Bracken: If payments have been made to any hon. Members for broadcasting, this is an entirely private matter between them and the B.B.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES, MIDDLE EAST AND MEDITERANNEAN (AIR MAILS)

Major York: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now lift the restrictions on the number of air mail letter-cards which may be sent home by Servicemen in the C.M.F. and the M.E.F., and cancel the postage charge of 3d. on these letter-cards in order to conform to the practice of Allied armies in those areas.

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): The possibility of increasing the ration of homeward air letters is at present being considered by the Departments concerned and I will acquaint my hon. and gallant Friend when a decision is reached. So far as I am aware only the British and Dominion troops in the Middle East and Mediterranean theatres use the air letter, and in no case is it issued free.

Colonel Clarke: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that a concession of this kind might do a lot to prevent a very large number of matrimonial troubles which now, to my personal knowledge, are occurring with men who have been a long time abroad?

Captain Crookshank: I do not know about matrimonial troubles. It is because we think it would be a very good thing, if we could increase the ration, that it is now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Prefabricated Houses

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he can state the cost of the amended prototype emergency house.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): My Noble Friend has stated a figure at which he was aiming. The amendments introduced will necessarily affect this, but as soon as the final decision is taken it will be possible to work out the approximate cost of the improvements introduced.

Mr. Edwards: Has not my hon. Friend already sufficient information to show that permanent houses can be built at a lower cost than this temporary house? Has he not changed his plans altogether?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Do the figures which have been published relate to the house as it is, with magnificent fittings, or to the house as it will be, with very inferior fittings?

Mr. Hicks: The figure aimed at by my Noble Friend is for the show house outside the Tate Gallery with fittings as shown. When the houses are mass produced, their fittings will be those finally chosen but similar to those in the show house.

Sir H. Williams: Is the prototype now the official description of what was known first as the Churchill house and subsequently as the Portal house?

Mr. Edwards: Has not my hon. Friend told, the House that he had information to prove that the Tarran type of house is very much cheaper than the house that he proposes, and also that permanent houses are very much cheaper? I have the information from the Minister himself.

Mr. Hicks: Before this canard goes any farther, I can definitely say that the information that we have at the Ministry does not coincide with my hon. Friend's statement, that houses built by others, of a permanent character, are cheaper.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is satisfied that the camber of the roof of the proposed prefabricated houses is sufficiently steep to stand the heavy weights of snow which are common in the Northern part of the Kingdom.

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman put one of these houses up this winter in the North and see whether experience confirms this? Also will he show the house around in the North so that others can see it besides Londoners?

Mr. Hicks: I have given the House the information that the Secretary of State for Scotland has had one built in Scotland, that other prototypes are being made and that they will be available in each region this year.

Letting Agreement (Children)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the fact that landlords are serving notice to quit on the wives of Service men, when they are expecting to have a baby, because of their objection to having children in homes or furnished rooms; and if he will take whatever steps may be necessary to invalidate existing No children clauses in letting agreements.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. and learned Friend's attention has been drawn from time to time to this matter, and inquiries are being made to see how far the practice is an extensive one. If there is reason to suppose that it is at all common, he will certainly consider whether action can be taken to check it, by a more extensive use of requisitioning powers or otherwise.

Mr. Granville: Has the hon. Lady seen the statement of the Bristol City Council and other councils referring to this state of affairs, and will she investigate that aspect of it?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is anxious to investigate any facts that are brought to his notice.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely the hon. Lady is aware that this practice is very widespread. It has been going on for years.

When a baby is coming, the woman is turned out.

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps the hon. Member would send me the name and address of any case that he knows.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mrs. R. Howie, of Slough, Buckinghamshire, wife of Petty-Officer W. A. Howie of the Royal Navy, has been turned out of her lodgings because she was going to have a baby, although she has been engaged upon war work; and what steps he proposes to take to enable Petty-Officer Howie, who has been wounded in recent operations, and his wife to obtain suitable living accommodation.

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir, but, if my hon. Friend will supply Mrs. Howie's address I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Granville: Is the hon. Lady aware of the scandalous overcrowding in this district? Will the Department take steps to requisition large houses and fit them up as hostels for these young Service wives during this period? Is there any reason why it cannot be done?

Miss Horsbrugh: There are extensive powers of requisitioning, which are being used. I will deal with any particular point that the hon. Member brings to my notice.

Mr. Granville: I have given the name and address already in the Question.

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member has given the name, and I have asked if he will provide me with the address.

Mr. Granville: Is the hon. Lady not aware that her own billeting officers at Slough, Eton or Windsor could supply the address to the Ministry by telephone?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Parliamentary Franchise (Register)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what information is now to hand regarding the numbers of officers and men in the Royal Navy who have applied for registration for the parliamentary franchise as a result of the promised inquiry.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The inquiry which I promised my hon. Friend should be made,


is in hand, but he will appreciate that a little time must elapse before sufficient information will be available to enable a true impression as to how the scheme is working to be formed. If, however, he will put down another Question in a few weeks' time, I hope to be able to give the House a reliable and representative picture.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army have already provided this information and that the Air Force, through the Secretary of State, have expressed considerable self-satisfaction about the information that they have, and is not this carrying the tradition of the silent Service rather further than is reasonably necessary?

Mr. Alexander: It is just the fact that a large part of the Navy is almost continuously at sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

North East Coast (Industrial Position)

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the official anxiety for the future industrial position of the North-east coast; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the full employment of industry and the industrial community.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): My right hon. Friend is fully aware that the North-East coast is one of the areas requiring special attention. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Government's White Paper on Employment Policy and to the full statements made by my right hon. Friends during the Debates on that Paper.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that we are getting tired of "words, words, words"? When will he be in a position to state, in definite terms, what action is being taken?

Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Lady should already be aware. Industrialists seeking to set up new industries are being advised to go to that as one of four areas.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is one thing that he must do as the first step? Is he not aware that the ship-

building industry has prevented the development of shipbuilding for 4o years, and that the first thing to do is to remove the restriction?

Captain Waterhouse: That is another question altogether.

Mr. Burke: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to three other areas, is Lancashire amongst them, or are they depressed areas only?

Captain Waterhouse: Lancashire is not included as one of the areas requiring the most urgent attention, but the needs of Lancashire are by no means forgotten.

Miss Ward: Why does my right hon. and gallant Friend express anxiety, if he believes that everything is perfect?

Captain Waterhouse: I am very far from believing that everything is perfect but I have pointed out that steps are being taken by the Board of Trade, and it is not merely "words, words, words."

Mr. A. Edwards: My previous question was implicit in the Question on the Paper. Middlesbrough had a most prosperous shipbuilding industry. Now there is not a single site in action, owing to the action of Shipbuilding Securities, who have prevented shipbuilding in my constituency for forty years. That is a very important question.

Captain Waterhouse: I am well aware of its importance but the Question refers to the industrial position in general. If the hon. Member would like specific information on a specific industry, I will supply it if he puts down a Question.

Tooth Brushes (Empire Requirements)

Sir M. Sueter: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what arrangements have been made to supply foreign tooth brushes to certain British Dominions and Colonies; and has the brush export group been informed of all the arrangements;
(2) why the proposal made to his department that the Governments of the British Colonies affected by the arrangements for the supply of foreign tooth brushes should purchase bulk supplies of tooth brushes without trade marks for distribution through normal channels in order to retain the goodwill of British industry for the post-war period have been disregarded.

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The requirements of the Empire for tooth brushes cannot all be met from this country at present. Part of the requirements is accordingly being met from the United States through ordinary commercial channels. The Brush Export Group have been kept informed.

British Cinema Industry (Merger)

Mr. John. Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the merger announced between D. and P. Studios and the Rank interests was made with the previous consent of his Department, since it conflicts with the previously announced policy of avoiding monopolistic control of British film production.

Captain Waterhouse: Mr. Rank acquired a controlling interest in D. and P. Studios in 1942. The recent consolidation has, therefore, no bearing on the use of the studios. Consequently, it does not conflict with the policy announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the Department intend to take any steps to prevent the Rank interest gaining control of the film industry?

Captain Waterhouse: Adequate steps to that end have already been taken.

LIEUT.-COLONEL CYRIL ROCKE

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to arrest Colonel Rocke who has been broadcasting in Italy during the war.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what action is being taken in respect of Lieut.-Colonel C. Rocke, formerly of the British Embassy in Rome, who broadcast propaganda for the Italian Fascist Government during the present war and has now established contact with British Forces in Italy.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Sir A. Evans) yesterday.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that the colonel stated recently that he hoped he had been able to be of some help to

us during the war, could the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in fact, he has been working for us?

Mr. Henderson: I have no information.

Mr. Driberg: Would it not be perfectly easy to check the record of this colonel, and what he broadcast for Mussolini, with the B.B.C. monitoring service?

Mr. Henderson: No doubt that and other relevant matters will be considered when the time comes to take a decision.

Mr. Driberg: Has not the time come to take a decision that people Like this man and William Joyce are traitors?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in this country it is customary to collect all the evidence together, before a person is dealt with under the penal law.

Mr. Bellenger: Did not my hon. and learned Friend collect the evidence when the War Office decided to withhold this officer's retired pay in 1940?

Mr. Henderson: That may be, but a good deal has happened since then and we wish to gather all the relevant evidence before we take a decision.

SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement on the abolition of anomalies with regard to Service pay and allowances.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Certain minor points regarding Service pay and allowances are now under consideration by Ministers. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a statement will be made before the Recess?

Mr. Attlee: It will be much sooner than that; it will be in a very short time now.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements with the B.B.C. to broadcast a notice or a short talk to all Services, calling


attention to the necessity of completing the requisite form to ensure inclusion in the electoral register.

Mr. Attlee: Two broadcast talks have already been given on this subject. The question of a further talk is being considered.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the fact that the majority of men in some of the Services have never heard of the forms that have to be filled in, and that it is not usual to find more than an infinitesimal percentage of the men filling in the forms, should it not be the duty of the officers to see that the men get the forms, and not simply put them up in some out of the way place?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is giving information or opinions and not asking for facts.

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend had better put any question on details to the Service Ministers concerned. It is not within my province.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the forms have been distributed widely?

Mr. Attlee: I have not heard a word of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Soft Drinks

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the Soft Drinks Industries (War Time) Association, Limited, have issued an order to their members prohibiting the use of ordinary corks for squashes, alleging that ordinary corks are not satisfactory as a re-closure, although they have been used for soft drinks for over a century; that many of their members object to this prohibition, which is a violation of a Statutory Order (British Standards Institution Schedule 1048, 1942, Table 23) which permits the use of screw cap, stoppers and ordinary corks; and if he will take steps for the removal of this embargo on ordinary corks.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I am aware that the Soft Drinks Industry (War Time) Association have instructed their members not to use plain driven corks without tops in packing

squashes for the Association. This action is not a contravention of the containers and packaging Order, number 404 of 1944, and I see no reason to intervene.

Sir G. Broadbridge: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is an ample stock of ordinary corks in this country for the use of the soft drinks industry; and is he also aware that other forms of stoppers take up valuable shipping space, and that, as they cost three times as much as ordinary corks, the loss to the Treasury on foreign exchange is considerable?

Colonel Llewellin: As a matter of fact, corks are not the best kind of stoppers to keep these drinks in good condition.

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the increasing demand, he will authorise a larger supply of soft drinks to be manufactured in order that no one may be driven to partake of alcoholic liquor through the shortage of non-alcoholic beverages.

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. I regret that the labour and raw materials available do not at present permit an increase in production.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep in the forefront of his mind the necessity of providing a sufficient supply of these drinks to meet the demand?

Colonel Llewellin: The output is being kept up and is now equal to what it was in 1940.

Mr. Mathers: Is the improvement of the quality also being considered?

Colonel Llewellin: I think the quality of these drinks is very good.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that many of these soft drinks drive drinkers to alcohol?

Cereals (Brewing)

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at the shortage of beer coming both from the civilian population and the Army, he will, in view of the better food situation, allow the use of additional barley to brewers in order to remove this complaint and permit of a better beer being brewed.

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. I regret that the labour and cereals available do not at present permit an improvement in either quantity or quality.

Sir W. Wayland: In view of the immense importance of this question to millions of people, will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep it constantly under review?

Colonel Llewellin: I will certainly keep it well in the forefront of my mind.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that the best way to salute the soldier would be to improve the quality of his beer?

Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the same concern about the quality of soft drinks, that he has expressed about beer?

Colonel Llewellin: There is another Question on that subject.

Fish Friers (Fats)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food whether he will soon be able to increase the allowance of fats to fish friers.

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, so far as can be foreseen, the oils and fats position is not likely to improve sufficiently to permit of any increase to fish friers in the near future.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that the increased supply of fish is useless to fish friers, without an additional supply of fat?

Colonel Llewellin: I am well aware of that, but unfortunately the fats position does not allow of any more being allocated.

Mr. Buchanan: Could not the Minister look at this matter again? Is he aware that in great working-class districts, fried fish is a very useful food and a fine thing for great masses of people?

Colonel Llewellin: I am well aware of that, but the fat ration in the home is not too large either.

Mr. Buchanan: Is not this the most economical and best way to use fats?

Rabbits

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that it is not worth

while catching rabbits to sell them at the controlled price and, owing to the rapid increase in the numbers of these pests, can he see his way clear to allow them to be sold in a free market.

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The present prices are sufficient to encourage the killing of rabbits where trapping can be effectively used. Moreover, I am advised that, apart from the usual seasonal increase, the number of wild rabbits in the country has generally decreased.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that rabbits are on the increase again now, that they are being gassed, and that that is destroying human food? Will he not, therefore, give further consideration to the matter?

Colonel Llewellin: Rabbits always do increase about this time of the year.

Mr. Woodburn: If the Minister has any difficulty about this pest, will he invite the workers to help him get rid of it?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep a close watch on the agitation for an increased price in commodities like rabbits as the price is already 250 per cent. higher than before the war?

Colonel Llewellin: It is not as high as that: it is about zoo per cent. However, I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I am not inclined to increase these prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARCELS FROM OVERSEAS FORCES (DUTY)

Major York: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now lift the restrictions on the number of parcels which British soldiers may send from the C.M.F. and M.E.F. in order to conform to the practice of the United States Army.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. I assume that this Question relates to the concession introduced last year, under which members of the Forces serving overseas are allowed to send home free of Customs duty not more than four parcels a year. While my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to increase this number, he has recently authorised the raising of the maximum value for each duty-free parcel from 30s. to 40s.

Major York: Would my right hon. Friend say how the Government justify the differentiation between the practice of our own Forces and that in the American Forces in this respect?

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid there are many differences between our own Forces and the American Forces. We are not such a rich country as the United States.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the amount of duty derived from taxing these parcels from the Forces substantial; and if it is not could not the Government consider doing away with it altogether as it is an irritation to both members of the Forces and their dependants at home?

Mr. Assheton: I could not possibly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B)

Mr. Douglas Cooke reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That Mr. Ritson, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the Sitting of the Committee yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added the following six Members to the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills: Mr. Gretton, Mr. Guy, Mr. Jewson, Mr. Reakes, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, and Major York.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL) (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Sir Charles McAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following two Members to serve on the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: Mr. Grenfell and Mr. Gretton.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1942

Resolved:
That this House will on Friday resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 3rst March, 1943, and the application of surplus receipts realised under certain Votes for Navy, Army and Air Services towards making good deficits in receipts under other Votes in the respective Departments.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Ordered:
That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments which were presented 18th January, be referred to the Committee."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Increased reduction of duty on publicans' licences in respect of diminution in supplies of wines and spirits.)

In section thirteen of the Finance Act 1942 (which provides for a five per cent. reduction of duty on publicans' licences in respect of the diminution in supplies of wines and spirits) for the words "five per cent." there shall be substituted the words "twenty-five per cent."—[Sir P. Hannon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In this proposal I am asking the Chancellor to give some regard to those who supply spirits and wines. The Financial Secretary will recall that when the Finance Bill, 1942, was going through the House of Commons, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a concession of five per cent. to licensees of public houses in order to compensate them to some extent for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I am trying to speak as loudly as I can, so that Members can all hear me, in spite of the noise. We are now asking for a 25 per cent. concession of the licensee's duty, as the necessity for some relief is even more pressing now, than it was then, owing to 'the very great reduction that has taken place in the available supplies of spirits and wines for public-houses, and other places of entertainment. For instance, the supply of whisky is less than 50 per


cent. of what it was when the former concession was given. I have had a number of letters from local licensed victuallers' associations, appealing in strong terms for a reconsideration of this question. In one letter, the President of the Welsh Federation of Licensed Victuallers makes a very strong case of the hardship which exists among licensees in Wales, because of the continued magnitude of the duty. When Sir Kingsley Wood was making the concessions in 1942, he said that the reduction of five per cent, which he conceded in the licence duties payable by publicans was all he was able to do, in the circumstances that were facing him at that time. I suggest that circumstances facing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day are very much more favourable than those which faced Sir Kingsley Wood, and I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to be a party to the continuance of unjust conditions among licensees everywhere in the country.
Throughout the war, the licensed traders have had a very difficult part to play in our social life, because of the increase in our Armed Forces, and the advent among us of American forces and forces from other countries The difficulties confronting a licensed trader become very acute occasionally, when he runs entirely out of wines and spirits. I hope that the Treasury will take account of these difficulties and give the licensed trader some consideration. The Financial Secretary knows how seriously the volume of trade has been reduced in licensed houses during the last few years. If the canons of taxation are to be observed, there should be justice all round, and the consideration for which we ask should be extended to the licensed trade. While I am not very hopeful that the Treasury are in a mood to make concessions to any part of the country, I see on the Government Front Bench my right hon. and gallant Friend the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, looking with very careful and considerate attention at the proceedings on this Bill. I feel that if he were responsible for replying to this proposal, his kindly, generous and soft heart would impel him to do whatever he could for the licensed trade of the country.

Sir Irving Albery: I beg to second the Motion.
From what my hon. Friend has said, it is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised, in 1942, that some concession was due to licensees in this matter, and he appears also to have recognised that the concession he made was not adequate to do justice to the case. I notice a tendency on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whenever he considers that, owing to altered circumstances, or actions that have been taken by private individuals, some deficiency occurs in the Revenue, to take drastic action to remedy the matter. We are glad that he does so, and we support him in seeing that the Exchequer obtains that which is its due. On the other hand, it appears to me to be clearly shown that if some injustice has been done to a class of taxpayers owing to the incidence of the war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not equally forthcoming. He seems to be 10th to alter legislation to put right grievances of taxpayers, in matters of that kind.

Sir William Wayland: I support the Motion. I should like to point out that when we pay Income Tax we do so according to our incomes, but when the publican pays his licence duty, he has to pay the same amount as he paid prior to the war, despite the fact that the amount of stuff he is able to sell is considerably less. It is, therefore, just that the licence duty should be decreased. This matter has been before the House of Commons on many occasions, and on more than one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised redress. A small redress was given, but I certainly think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should still further, and considerably, reduce the duty. If the Ministry of Food had only accepted my proposal and had allowed more beer to be brewed, perhaps this proposal would not have been necessary.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The House is always very sorry, as I am, for any section of the community which has suffered in consequence of the war. Hon. Members are, naturally, just as sorry if it is a publican who has suffered, as if it is anybody else, but I would draw the attention of the House to the concessions that were made in the Finance Act, 1942. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) has fully appre-


ciated what those concessions really were. They were in two Sections of that Finance Act—Sections 13 and 14. Section 14 provides licence duty relief, in view of the general shortage of supplies and diminished trade, for all retail liquor licences. Except as regards the publican's licence, which is a composite licence to sell any liquor by retail, this relief is based on the trade done in each separate liquor, and applies to each separate licence. The amount of relief is two-thirds of the amount of the diminution in trade. As far as publicans are concerned, this relief is calculated on the trade in beer alone or, in Scotland, on the trade in spirits. It is at the same rate as for separate licences. This takes no account of the shortage of wines and spirits in public-houses, and a special relief of 5 per cent. for publicans was allowed by the other Section of the Act to which I have referred—Section 13. That was designed to give partial compensation for the loss of trade in wines and spirits.
I admit that this does not give full compensation in the circumstances. None the less, I think the House appreciates that we cannot always do what we would like to do, and we have to consider the revenue. The concession for which my hon. Friend asks would cost £600,000, and I am sorry to say that in view of that sum, my right hon. Friend does not feel able, in present circumstances, to make the concession.

Sir P. Hannon: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to continue an injustice in order to keep the revenue at a certain level?

Mr. Assheton: No, but His Majesty's Government made a concession, and they feel that it is as far as they can go at the present time; they cannot go any further.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Registration of trademark and deduction as expenses.)

Notwithstanding anything in Rule 3 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D, when, after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-four, a person carrying on a trade pays any sum for the registration of a trademark in any part of the British Empire outside the United Kingdom or in any foreign country, the sum paid may be deducted as an expense in computing the profits or gains of

the trade for the purposes of income tax.—[Mr. Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, on several occasions, told us how sympathetic he feels to any proposals calculated to extend our export trade after the war, and it is with that object in view, that this proposal has been put forward. Hon. Members will appreciate that this question of the cost of the registration of trademarks for overseas markets may be, to a big established corporation, a very small matter, and it it were merely urged in their interests, I think the case would be 'bound to fail. But the position is not the same in the case of small firms. On that, I would like to say that if we desire to extend our exports after the war, I think we should be very foolish to rely entirely on trying to sell those things we have sold before. We should try, on the contrary, to discover new products which we can sell abroad, and, in order to do that we should encourage enterprising people to start businesses with the idea of selling new products abroad. To such a small firm charges of this kind are a serious consideration. I understand that to cover available markets abroad and in the Colonies might cost as much as £1,000 which, to people struggling to establish a business, is a substantial item. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the public interest, it might be desirable to allow this charge to be offset against Income Tax in the event of profits being earned. It may be that, for some reason, my right hon. Friend will not desire to add this Clause to the Bill at this stage. I would be satisfied if he would undertake seriously to consider the matter. I know that when the present Chancellor says he will consider a thing, he can be relied upon to do so. If I can have an assurance in that sense I shall be satisfied.

Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Assheton: Without going into the merits of the case which my hon. Friend has been putting, I can give him the assurance for which he asks. This problem is one of many which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to con-


sider in connection with questions relating to post-war taxation. In those circumstances, I am quite sure he will be good enough to withdraw his proposed Clause.

Mr. Hammersley: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could give us a little further explanation. I was rather surprised to see this new Clause on the Order Paper, as I was always under the impression that expenditure of this kind, which is necessary for the conduct of a business, was, in fact, allowed as a trading expense. Certainly in some businesses the registration of trademarks abroad is absolutely necessary. One of the great disadvantages under which the Lancashire cotton trade laboured in the past was that their trademarks were so frequently copied by Japan. Is it to be said that those cotton merchants, who produce special lines and have trademarks under which these special lines are sold, are not to regard registration of those particular lines as a legitimate trading expense? The position is obscure and if, in fact, the registration of a trademark abroad is essential for the carrying on of the business, is it not a legitimate trading expense?

Mr. Assheton: If, with permission, I may be allowed to answer my hon. Friend, a great deal is admissible as a deduction against trading profits for taxation purposes. The registration of a trademark constitutes the acquisition of a capital asset, however, and is part of the general question which my right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider.

Mr. Hammersley: Mr. Hammersley rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 21 of Finance Act, 1943.)

Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1943, shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if the word "coal" were inserted after the second word "to" in the fifth line thereof.—[Mr. Keeling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause refers to the Excess Profit Tax. To explain it, it is necessary to go back, not only to the 1943 Act, but to the Finance Act of 1941. Section 31 of that Act gives certain relief from Excess Profit Tax to companies or firms producing metals or oil where the Treasury certify that the prosecution of the war requires an abnormal production of those things, and therefore an accelerated wasting of assets, and a shortening of the life of the concern. At that time the Chancellor resisted any extension of the relief to other minerals or to clay, stone, chalk or gravel. He said that he had endeavoured to meet only exceptional cases, in which the Government were asking for exceptional efforts. Surely that applies now to coal. If there is a mineral in the production of which exceptional efforts are required, it is coal. In 1943, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way as regards other substances. He agreed to the extension of this benefit of the 1941 Act to certain minerals, namely, asbestos and mica, and to sand, chalk, gravel and limestone. If the concession can be given to these substances, why cannot it be given to coal?
Although the output of coal generally, as we all know, is far below the pre-war level, there are certain collieries, especially in Leicestershire and South Derbyshire, which are producing very largely in excess of their pre-war output. Incidentally, I may mention that they are the only districts which have consistently earned the output bonus. In Leicestershire, in 1943, the production was 173 per cent. of the 1938 production, and in South Derbyshire it was 151 per cent. In some cases the life of these collieries is short, and the burden of full Excess Profits Tax, when the assets are being thus rapidly wasted, is serious, although the concession for which I am asking would not be a very serious matter from the Exchequer point of view. It would be only fair to extend to coal the concession which is given to metals, oil, asbestos, mica, chalk, sand, gravel and stone.
When the question was raised on the Finance Bill last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked whether it had been discussed with the mineworkers. Thereupon discussions took place. At first the Mineworkers Federation agreed to the concession, on the condition that the relief should be used for the improvement of the mines, not for the payment of divi-


dends. To that condition the colliery owners agreed; but subsequently the Mineworkers Federation withdrew their consent, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that if this was going to be a matter of political controversy he could not agree to it. I ask my right hon. Friend to deal with it on merits. I have already shown that the merits are considerable. Moreover, the mineworkers will benefit if this concession is given. It is not in their interests, but far otherwise, that the owners should be impoverished through paying away their resources in Excess Profits Tax, to the detriment of their capacity to improve the collieries. In view of the national importance of coal, I submit that the concession already given to other milling and quarrying industries ought to be extended to coalmining.

Mr. Hammersley: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that my hon. Friend has put the case very clearly. He has intimated to the House that certain wasting assets—in the first case, oil and metals, and, later on, sand, gravel, limestone, igneous rocks, chalk, asbestos, and mica—if they are used at an accelerated rate for the purposes of the war, receive special treatment. He has suggested that there is no reason why coal, which comes into that general category, should be singled out. He has intimated that the reason why it has received special treatment, is that there is no agreement between the Mineworkers Federation and the coalowners. If that is the case, it seems to me that we ought to decide this matter not on points which are affected by agreement between these trade associations, but purely on their merits.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I confess that I had been hoping to hear a little more of the cons, as well as the pros, in connection with this Clause. I am sure the House would wish me to offer the best judgment that I can on this matter. I have looked into it. The effect of the Clause, if it were accepted by the House, would be limited to the case in which there were increased output and excess profits, and where the mine could be shown to have a short life. In another connection, coal-mining has already been admitted to certain benefits, conceded in the case of wasting assets. I refer to the allowance

on capital, which can be increased where the capital investment has a short life. The benefit of that increased allowance, which, I think, is of the order of 1½ per cent., has been extended to coal. When the provision which it is now sought to extend was strictly limited to certain metals and to oil, the case for excluding a whole range of other wasting assets was, I think, definitely stronger than it is now, when the concession, as the result of an Amendment passed last year, has been extended to almost everything that is won out of the earth. I will not repeat the catalogue, that we have already had twice, of the various minerals and substances that are extracted from the earth, and are treated, for the purpose of Excess Profits Tax, as wasting assets. If the matter is to be viewed strictly on merit, I cannot myself see, apart from the history of this particular Amendment and the suggestion that there might be controversy, any substantial ground for treating coal as the one exception to a general practice which the House has approved. Therefore, unless it were clear that this was going to arouse further controversy in an area from which we all are anxious to banish controversy, I would say, on behalf of the Government, that I should be prepared to accept this Clause.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I would like to put a question—perhaps I ought to put it to the mover of the new Clause rather than to the Chancellor. The question is, whether the coalowners will observe the offer they made last year, and see that any concession they may get in this connection will be directed to the benefit of the industry?

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(Increase of standard profits in certain cases.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where—

(a) a trade or business is carried on by a partnership or by a company the directors whereof have a controlling interest therein; and
(b) the standard profits of the trade or business are ascertained by reference to the minimum amount specified in subsection (2)


of section thirteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939; and
(c) there are three or more working proprietors in the trade or business;
subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the reference to one thousand pounds there were substituted a reference to such greater sum, not exceeding two thousand pounds, as is arrived at by allowing five hundred pounds for each working proprietor in the trade or business.
As the Clause left the Committee, provision was made, in the case of small businesses, whether partnerships or director-controlled, for adding to the standard a sum of £1,000. In the case of a business with one working proprietor the addition was £1,000, and in the case of the business with two working proprietors the addition worked out at £500 for each working proprietor. During the Committee stage an argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), which received a measure of support, was directed to making a case for including the small business with more than two working proprietors. The suggestion was that the purpose of the Clause, which was to encourage the small man and give him the means of expanding his business, and putting profits back into his business, would be more effectively met, if the line were not drawn at two working partners. On behalf of the Government it was promised that consideration would be given, between the Committee stage and the Report stage, to the possibility of making some slight extension of the principle embodied in the Clause. I have gone into the matter, and I feel that, while any extension of the £1,000, in order to meet this particular case, would, to some extent, mar the symmetry of the proposal I put before Parliament, which was that there should be a flat addition of £1,000 in the case of all alternative standards—everything but the ordinary profits standards—I am bound to say I was influenced by the arguments put forward. I think, on the whole, we might hold that a case has been made out for giving to the small business with three or four working proprietors, the same proportional advantage per working proprietor as is proposed in the Clause in the case of two working proprietors. For that reason, I have submitted this Amendment for acceptance by the House.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satis-

fled that the concession he is proposing will not be liable to abuse?

Sir J. Anderson: I am pretty certain that it will not be liable to abuse, because we are guarding ourselves elsewhere against abuse in regard to the number of working proprietors, and I think I shall be able to show, when we come to an Amendment to Clause 33, that we have taken effective measures to that end. I am very anxious, and I believe the House is anxious, to give every encouragement to the small working proprietor business, and I think we shall not go far wrong if we make this small extension. I ought to tell the House what the cost to the Exchequer is likely to be, because that will enable hon. Members to judge of the practical effect of this concession. Making allowance for the additional Income Tax that will be collected, when the excess profits standard is raised, the best estimate I can give of the probable cost is £600,000 a year.

Mr. Woodburn: While not disapproving of the Amendment I must point out that it does raise a question in regard to the adjective "working". We understand that that will be interpreted literally, because the large number of sleeping partners in industry to-day who draw considerable incomes from companies, though playing no effective part in production, is a scandal, and I would not like to think that that was to be assisted by a side wind in this way.

Sir J. Anderson: I think I can safely give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Sir Arnold Gridley: May I, very briefly but very earnestly, thank the Chancellor for agreeing to meet us on this point in the way he has? His concession will be very much appreciated; and, as he himself has recognised, a good deal of that which he gives with one hand, he will collect back with the other. I hope the House will unanimously agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 37, leave out "Sub-section (1)," and insert "The preceding provisions."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Tax avoidance.)

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page


21, line 41, after "transactions," to insert:
being a transaction which involves, or transactions one or more of which involve—

(a) the transfer or acquisition of shares in a company; or
(b) a change or changes in the person or persons carrying on a trade or business or part of a trade or business."
The object of this Amendment to what is now Clause 33 is to carry out the suggestion that I made at the conclusion of the Debate on the Committee stage, when I said that my right hon. Friends and I were quite prepared to consider any Amendment which would clearly delimit the target at which we were aiming, but would not in any way lessen the powers which we thought were necessary. We suggest this Amendment as carrying out that purpose. The House will see that it limits our attack on this tax avoidance to the two cases which I stressed and which were generally admitted:

"(a) The transfer or acquisition of shares in a company; or
(b) a change or changes in the person or persons carrying on a trade or business or part of a trade or business."
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) will see that in (b) we have clearly aimed at, and clearly attacked, the abuse of the working proprietor position. Paragraph (a) deals with what we call familiarly the "birth, marriage and divorce" of companies for purposes of improving their excess profits standard. These were the two evils at which our anti-tax avoidance provisions were aimed. The other matters which were mentioned and especially stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), such as expenses of advertising and research, and certain matters of prices, will no longer be struck at. These were the innocent transactions, which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members were afraid might, unwittingly, be struck at by this Act. I hope the House will feel that by this Amendment we have maintained exactly the spirit and letter of the suggestion that I made to the House, that is, to make quite clear that the target at which we are aiming is not in any way lessened, nor is the strength of the missile which we aim at it.

Mr. Benson: Once again the Government have given way to the pressure from hon. Members behind them.

[An HON. MEMBER: "Why should they not?"] Because it is the duty of this House to safeguard the fisc and not to facilitate the activities of people who wish to evade taxation. When this provision was introduced in 1940, tremendous pressure was put upon the Government to weaken it by introducing the words "main purpose." After two or three years' experience, it was found that that modification allowed a large number of people to indulge in transactions which did avoid tax, and now, once again, the Clause is weakened by the Government introducing a strictly limiting Amendment. It is true that the Solicitor-General, when he was defending the Clause on the Committee stage, pointed out that the vast majority of the cases of tax avoidance, with which the Inland Revenue had had to deal, had been cases where companies had bought up other companies, for the purpose of manipulating their standards, or where limited companies and private companies had introduced additional working partners or directors, obviously with the purpose of improving the standard. Admittedly these two types of avoidance are still brought under the Clause as amended, but is there any reason why a Clause like this, which, I suggest, contains adequate safeguards for the taxpaper, should limit the target to such a small area?
We have had a long experience now of legislation against tax avoidance and history has repeated itself time and time again. A Clause has been drafted, and it may or may not have been improved in its passage through the House, but in a few years it has been found that the Clause was drafted too narrowly. If we draft a narrow Clause, to say exactly what is illegal, by doing so we also say what is legal, and the ingenuity of the tax avoider enables him to look around and find some loophole. Every hon. Member knows that that has been the history of tax avoidance legislation in the past 20 years, and here again we are commiting the same blunder. We are limiting the Clause and narrowing the target to such an extent that any other form of tax avoidance will be legal—if it has not previously been stopped. I suggest that there is adequate protection for the taxpayer in this Clause, Sub-section (3) of which says that a transaction shall be regarded as having for its main object the avoidance of tax if the main benefit to be derived from that action is the


avoidance of tax. If the main benefit to be derived from any particular transaction is the avoidance of tax, is there any reason why that transaction should not be voided? Here, again, we have a safeguard in that the ultimate decision upon whether the main benefit is, or is not, the avoidance of tax, rests with the Special Commissioners. It does not rest with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Again, I suggest, we know from long experience that, as an appellate body, the Special Commissioners have always been extremely careful to protect the rights of the taxpayer. This is not the first occasion upon which an Attorney-General, a Solicitor-General or a Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to this House and explained that what he is proposing to do is to strengthen a Clause, because the decisions of the Special Commissioners have allowed so many fish to escape his net. I suggest that Sub-section (3) is adequate protection, and if we delimit the object of the Clause, it will only be a year or two before the Chancellor comes again and attempts to strengthen the Clause. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this matter very seriously.

Sir Peter Bennett: I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by my hon. Friend, because he will remember that when we discussed this in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General made it quite clear that they must have sufficient powers to deal with the tax-dodging which had been brought to light by the experience of the last three years. The officials of the Inland Revenue have got the cases, and they know exactly what they are aiming at. We said that we were in sympathy with that and wished to help them, but that we did not want to have the wording so wide that it would hurt people who were not engaged in tax-dodging, but were carrying out normal business activities. I submit that if the officials are satisfied that the words are sufficient for their purpose, that is exactly what we are aiming at. If they say that they have sufficient weapons to deal with the cases made out, I think that the Solicitor-General is doing the right thing in carrying out the promise he made, that he was shooting at a certain target, and that that

was the target he wanted to hit—or, to put it another way, that he had decided to shoot a solid shot at the target and was not using a high explosive, so that the rest of us would not be hurt by the blast. I hope the Amendment will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Hammersley: If the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) were agreed to, it seems to me that one essential tenet of taxation, namely, that the taxpayer should know as near as he can where he stands, would be lost.

Mr. Benson: Surely, under Sub-section (3), the taxpayer is the best person to know what is the major benefit arising from taxation, and, if it is avoidance of tax, he will know it before the Inland Revenue know it.

Mr. Hammersley: It may be that a transaction which is perfectly innocent, and absolutely desirable, might have a benefit in this direction, and then, under the Clause as it is now drawn, it would be the duty of the taxpayer to show that it was not the main benefit. There was a great deal of apprehension that this Clause was too widely drawn, and we received the information that the cases that the Chancellor had in mind were, in fact, cases of this kind. They were share transactions, and transactions in respect of working proprietors. We asked that the cases of abuse should be definitely decided and delineated in the Clause, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done that. We are very grateful to him for so doing. Although it is wise that he has done this, I do not think it is right that the taxpayer who is innocent should be in jeopardy, and should have to prove that he is innocent. That is the point. The taxpayer would not finally escape taxation, but he would be put in the position of a tax inspector making directions, and he would then have to go to the Special Commissioners. Of course, if he were innocent, nothing would happen, but, in the meantime, he would be in an uncomfortable and invidious position, and, it may be, he would refrain from doing something which he ought to do in the interests of the community. For these reasons, I wholeheartedly welcome the Amendment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think there is any real


difference of opinion in any part of the House, on this matter. We are all agreed that tax avoidance with the object of evading a burden which is falling upon others shall be stopped, and I think we are all agreed that if there are perfectly innocent people, engaged in a transaction for ordinary purposes, they shall not be penalised by the decisions in this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) says that in the past this particular method of tax avoidance has consisted of certain actions, but if this House, at the instigation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confines the penalties in this Clause to an action of a precise and specific nature, is it not possible that those who want to practise tax avoidance will go a little out of their way and adopt a new method which, in view of this Amendment, will not be specifically prohibited by the law of the land? That is not a question of sentiment, but one of practical effect and I want to ask the Government and the Chancellor two questions. First, is the Chancellor reasonably sure that the fear which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has raised is not substantial? Is it possible, or likely, that those who have used methods of tax avoidance which were open to them in the past, would be stopped from doing so in the future if the Clause were carried out in its entirety, or, is it possible that they may find a loophole in consequence of the Amendment which he is moving to-day? That is the first question.
The second question is: Will the Chancellor give us the assurance that if—in spite, it may be, of any statement which he makes in answer to the first question—there is, again, definite proof that tax avoidance has arisen out of this Amendment, he will come to us again? Will he hold himself perfectly free in, say, two years' time, or at the first available opportunity—it cannot be next year because time must elapse—not only to strengthen the law, but to make it retrospective so that those who are taking improper advantage of the Amendment which has been moved to-day will not gain any advantage by such improper action?

Sir A. Gridley: If the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) will forgive me, I would like to say that I thought it a little unworthy of him to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all

people, is more likely to yield to persuasions from this side of the House, than from any other quarter.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee: Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee indicated dissent.

Sir A. Gridley: We all know how difficult it is to get concessions from the Chancellor, no matter to what party we may belong, and, therefore, I think that the hon. Member's remark, if I may respectfully say so, was a little unjust and uncalled for. I took part in the Debate on this Bill in the Committee stage, and pressed strongly for some limiting of Clause 32, as it then was and as then drawn, and the Solicitor-General, in endeavouring to meet the arguments, divulged to us that the great majority of cases were of the type which the Chancellor is still seeking to catch by the provisions of this Amendment. I would point out to the hon. Member for Chesterfield that paragraph (a) of this Amendment, which deals with the transfer or acquisition of shares of a company, is still extremely wide. Therefore, I think that his fears that improper share transactions may still be sought have very little foundation. Since the Committee stage, there is one paint which I did venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We heard of cases in which juniors had been brought into partnership. Such cases had been taken to the Commissioners, who, although they felt that the arguments for bringing in a junior were ridiculous, could not prove that the motive was not a bona fide one. Therefore, I would like to see brought within the ambit of this Clause, something to the following effect:
No person under 21 years of age at the passing of this Act, or who was under that age before the appropriate date in 1941, may be deemed to be a partner or working proprietor under the provisions of Clause 32 of this Act and of this Clause.
The wording of that may not be altogether appropriate, but I see no reason for not ante-dating an age limit, because anyone round about that age during the last two or three years ought to be either in military service, or directed to work of greater national importance. I do not know whether the Chancellor has considered whether or not it would be appropriate to get this further power, and make it impossible for anyone under the age of 21 to be made, or to be deemed, a work-


ing partner. Perhaps, when he replies, he will be good enough to deal with the point. May I thank him once more for the way in which he has met the criticisms brought out in the Committee stage?

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask one question on what the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has said about the part of the Clause which deals with the sale of shares? Some share companies, on being offered a price far shares, may try to avoid E.P.T., but others may sell their shares perfectly innocently. I would like to know if something can be done for those people who sell their shares innocently, and have no idea whatever of tax avoidance.

Sir J. Anderson: As regards the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), I think I know the case which could best be quoted to illustrate the point he makes. In that particular case, if my conjecture is correct, some innocent shareholders may have been concerned in the scandal which arose in connection with that transaction, and which was such that I am sure all hon. Members in this House, with very few exceptions, would agree that there was good ground for applying the law with retrospective effect. In regard to the point just made by the hon. Member far Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), I looked at his suggestion, but I would point out to him that, if it were to be adopted, it would involve an increased charge. Therefore, I suppose that that, without a Resolution, would be out of Order, and I felt that I could not consider it further nor, indeed, do I think that the addition he suggested would be necessary, because the Amendment we are considering seems to do all that is required.
Regarding what the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) had to say, it seemed to me that he was basing his argument, and concentrating attention unduly, on Sub-section (3) of the Clause, and was leaving out of consideration altogether the fact that there is a provision in Subsection (2), which, taken by itself, would go a long way towards tightening up the provisions in the earlier Finance Act which have been found, in practice, to be defective. The Amendment which is proposed to Sub-section (3) has no effect

whatever in weakening Sub-section (2). Let us, therefore, look to see just what the effects of the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (3) will be, and what are the arguments on which the Amendment rests. As Sub-section (3) stands in the Bill, in regard to every transaction, the mere fact that it has the result of lightening the burden of tax is taken as conclusive proof that the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the management was to avoid tax liability. Experience has shown that, in regard to the types of transaction which were so fully discussed during Committee stage, it is extraordinarily difficult to produce evidence to rebut the suggestion that, though the main effect of a transaction was to relieve the taxpayer of part of his tax burdens, that was not his purpose, or one of his main purposes. Experience has shown that it is difficult to make the fact of tax avoidance conclusive proof as to purpose or intention, and what we have to ask ourselves is whether, in regard to other actions by taxpayers, which have the effect of reducing the burden of their tax obligations, it would be reasonable to apply the same principle. Quite frankly, I do not think it would. There is no experience which suggests that it would be necessary to apply the provision of Sub-section (3) to other classes of transactions, and there are very many transactions, of a perfectly legitimate character, in regard to which it would be unjust to claim that tax lightening was the intention of the taxpayer, and that there was proof of evasion.
Let me take a simple case of an enterprising firm, which believes in research and starts a new research establishment, in the course of the year, to do some long-term research. The immediate effect is to lighten the burden of tax, and it may be very difficult to show that, in the long run, that expenditure will be remunerative, and that there was no other real purpose than to lighten the burden of tax. It is of the essence of fruitful research, that it may be undertaken in many cases where the hope of direct reward is somewhat remote. Many other cases could be given where a perfectly legitimate action is taken by a taxpayer, which has the immediate effect of reducing the tax burden, but where a reasonable person would concede at once that the purpose of what had been done was not tax avoidance. To say, in such


cases, that the mere fact that the immediate effect was tax avoidance, must be taken as conclusive proof of a purpose, that no reasonable person would attribute to the taxpayer, would not be good sense. Therefore, I think the problem that confronted us in the Committee stage was really a practical one. Could we devise words which were widespread enough to cover the only serious abuses without such a sweeping rule? If we have succeeded, as I think we have, I think it is reasonable that the Clause should be amended in the manner we are now proposing.
In regard to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I can certainly say, as I have already indicated to the House, that I feel reasonably assured that there is no substantial danger, on the experience that we have had, of the effectiveness of the Clause as we have sought to amend it being in any way impaired in practice by the Amendment that has been produced. I will also say that if, contrary to my fairly confident anticipation, experience should show that some other kind of expedient has been discovered by ingenious taxpayers—would-be tax avoiders—which requires correction and remedy, I will not hesitate to come to this House with an appropriate Amendment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: And make it retrospective?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. It will be retrospective.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 40 (Application of Part VI.)

Sir Alexander Russell: I beg to move, in page 27, line 11, at the beginning, to insert:
The last preceding Section shall have effect in the case of all persons dying after the twenty-seventh day of Tune, nineteen hundred and forty, but save as aforesaid.
The object of this Amendment is to extend the provisions of Clause 39 of the Bill, to the case of all persons dying after 27th June, 1940, which was the date on which the Finance Act, 1940, became law. Clause 39 amends Section 44 of the Finance Act, 1940. That Section was directed against avoidance of Estate Duty,

which took the form of giving a lump sum during the life of the donor to a relative, in exchange for a life annuity calculated actuarially. On the donor's death, no charge to Estate Duty arose in respect of the cessor of the annuity, and the gift, being for full consideration, was also not chargeable. The remedy provided by the Section was, in such a case, to make the whole of the gift chargeable to duty on the donor's death. The Section, however, made no provision for any deduction in the case in which the annuity payments to the donor, up to the date of his death, exceeded the income earned by the property given by him to the relative over the same period, although in fact, such an excess is, clearly, in substance, a refund of part of the gift by the relative and should not, therefore, be charged to duty as part of the gift on the donor's death. Clause 39 makes provision for the deduction of this excess from the gift but its scope is limited by Clause 40 to the case of persons dying after the date on which this Finance Bill becomes law.
This limitation, I suggest, is clearly unjust, for it will exclude from relief all past cases in which duty has been charged, ever since the date of the passing of the Finance Act, 1940, on a basis now admitted to have been wrong. The remedy should be dated back to the date on which the wrong basis was first enacted, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment, which will have that result.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir A. Russell) has explained, quite correctly, the effect of the Amendment proposed and the case for it. The case for it is, quite briefly, that there are provisions in the Bill, as it stands, for correcting any inequity which has existed since the Finance Act, 1940, and it is perfectly logical and quite reasonable that, if the inequity is to be corrected, as we propose, it should be corrected from the date on which it arose. I do not think that any practical difficulty is likely to result, and I recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Qualifying date and qualifying period.)

Sir Irving Albery: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "is satisfied," and to insert "has reasonable cause to believe."
I do not intend to speak at any length on this Amendment. It was put down on a former occasion, when this House was informed that certain powers were being given to the Home Secretary. I suggest that there is more adequate protection in the words proposed than in the words "is satisfied." It seems to us that, in this Bill, the Home Secretary has a very large and important discretion, and his advisers—I believe they were the Law Officers—have previously said that the interests of this House could best be safeguarded by the words on the Order Paper. In those circumstances, I cannot but believe that the Amendment will be accepted by the Minister. If I am to be disappointed, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will give us adequate reasons for refusing to accept it, and, possibly, will explain why what was suitable on one occasion, is considered to be unsuitable on the present occasion.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I can only suppose, by the look in the Under-Secretary's eye, that he is not going to accept this quite moderate Amendment, but if he refuses it, I presume it will be upon the ground that the words mean something different, as indeed, I consider they do, from those words which appear in the original Bill. But if the words "has reasonable cause to believe" mean something different from "is satisfied," one is at a loss to know why, in this case, there is a difference in the meaning, whereas when the matter arose over Regulation 18B, it was held by the Attorney-General and others that there was then no difference whatever in the meaning of the words. On the other hand, the Under-Secretary may be in a somewhat yielding mood, and may be prepared to accept this excellent Amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend. In that case, he will presumably

tell us that the words do not mean something different. In any case, it will be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say on the matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My hon. Friends have moved this Amendment in most reasonable terms and I am grateful to them for so doing. The Amendment is, I think, in the nature of a hang-over from the Debate on Regulation 18B, which took place on 76th June. It is true that these words, "has reasonable cause to believe" have been the subject of judicial decision in the highest Court of the land, and have given rise to some controversy and even to some difference of opinion in that tribunal. During the Debate on 16th June my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred to his speech of 26th November, 1941, in which he explained very clearly the difference between these two forms of words. The Attorney-General said in the course of the Debate that day:
In addition to those changes the words 'has reasonable cause to believe' were substituted for 'is satisfied.' That change…was made to emphasise what the majority of the House desired to emphasise, namely, that these were cases to which the Home Secretary must direct his personal attention… Those words emphasise and make clear to the Home Secretary not that there is an alteration in the legal position in the sense that they give a resort to the courts, but that it is a matter to which he must direct his personal judgment and of which he must personally weigh the pros and cons. Everybody knows that the scope of modern Departments is such that in many cases "——[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1941; Vol. 376, c. 807.]

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I ought to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is getting away from the subject and is quoting from a Debate on a rather different subject.

Mr. Peake: I was basing myself upon the opinion—I myself not being highly versed in the law—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The point is that in Defence Regulation 18B these words were put into the Regulation to make sure that the Home Secretary gave, in a matter of the highest importance, namely, the liberty of the subject, his own personal undivided attention, and took upon himself the responsibility of investigating each individual case upon its merits. If we are to be asked, in a matter which involves a question only of whether


certain arrangements are or are not administratively feasible, to import these same words, then we are obviously raising the matter of administrative feasibility into the same order of importance and priority, as the question of the liberty of the subject under Defence Regulation 188. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, I am sure, would not wish to do that. If in every Statute—and there are very many Statutes—where a Minister has to form an opinion and has to be satisfied of something, we have to say to the Minister, "You have to give to this matter the same amount of personal attention, and take the same amount of personal responsibility as you have to take in the case of the detention of a British subject without trial," we are going to over-burden the Minister with a weight of responsibility which he cannot individually sustain, and we shall jeopardise the currency of the high value we at present place upon the liberty of the subject.
It is clear, in this matter, that it is a question of whether certain machinery is available and ready for use in connection with Parliamentary elections and that the Home Secretary must give his personal attention to it. But, as my hon. Friends are aware, in order that these arrangements under the 1943 Act with regard to elections may come into operation, the Home Secretary has to be satisfied that the arrangements are complete in every constituency. He has to be sure that they will work universally and simultaneously. The election machinery is to take automatic account of removals from one constituency to another, and if the administrative arrangements are incomplete or inadequate in one constituency, many other constituencies will thereby be affected. The Home Secretary must have the general responsibility for seeing that these arrangements are properly completed, but it is asking too much of him to say that he must investigate the position of affairs, personally, in the office of every clerk of a county, or every town clerk throughout the country, and be prepared to say to the town clerk or to a clerk of the peace, "Your arrangements are not adequate, you ought to take on additional staff, you must do this or that." That is, clearly, class of work which must be left to the ordinary day-to-day administration of the Home Office. I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Sir I. Albery: My right hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy and ability, has given a somewhat detailed explanation of his case. I cannot say, personally, that I feel he has met it. I do not think that anything can be much more important than the action which the Home Secretary would have to take under this Bill, arid certainly the Committee would expect him to give his direct personal attention to these matters, and, if the Bill so determines, that at a certain time it would be upon his direct responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman's chief difficulty probably arises from the somewhat false interpretation which has previously been given to the words. As a layman, I should have said that a person might have reasonable cause to believe something without being satisfied, but, on the other hand, I fail-to see how a person can be satisfied unless he "has reasonable cause to believe." I rather think that is the dilemma with which the right hon. Gentleman has been endeavouring to deal with great courage, courtesy and ability, but I do not think his reply is convincing.

Sir A. Southby: If my right hon. Friend will look once more at the portion of the Bill we are seeking to amend, he will see that it says:
This section shall expire with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five:
Provided that
(a) if at any time while this section is in force, not being less than two months before the date on which it would otherwise expire, the Secretary of State is satisfied that sufficient staff and facilities are available for the operation of the principal Act as originally enacted, he shall make an order advancing the date of expiration to a date specified in the order;
All through the Debate in the House yesterday there ran an under-current of fear that this amending Bill might perhaps be used for the purposes of a General Election, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give a categorical assurance on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was much too "fly" to give any such undertaking but confined himself to saying that it was a thousand to one against such a contingency arising. It is obvious that the House as a whole does not want to have, in this amending Bill, the means whereby the register should be compiled for a


General Election. It is a stop-gap Measure meant to put right something which was found to be amiss. Surely, the second greatest concern of the Home Secretary, and of the Under-Secretary, with regard to the liberty of the subject is to ensure that the subject should have an opportunity of giving his vote at a General Election in the best possible way, and that the best possible register should be compiled. I suggest that we have made out an overwhelming case that these words should be altered for the very reason which the right hon. Gentleman himself provides. His speech was the best speech for the Amendment we have had yet. He said that it was so important that the Home Secretary had to give his personal attention to it. He admitted that the proposed words made a great difference and laid a particular duty upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary. I cannot help thinking that he ought, therefore, to accept the Amendment so that there shall be no doubt whatever that when the Home Secretary has satisfied himself that there are staffing facilities available, he will, in the terms of the Bill, begin to act.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), in his second speech on the Amendment, seems to have contradicted his first, because in his view the words "is satisfied" in the Bill demand a higher degree of proof than the words "has reasonable cause to believe" which he seeks to substitute for them.

Sir I. Albery: I put down the Amendment in the belief it was the kind of Amendment the Government wanted to accept, because it coincided so completely with their views of the meaning of the words, "have reasonable cause to believe," but my view has always been the contrary.

Mr. Peake: I hesitated for some time whether I should or should not accept the Amendment. By so doing I should have taken the wind out of the sails of my hon. Friend. At the same time, I take the view that I should have been thereby debasing the currency of the very high value which we place upon the words "has reasonable cause to believe" and which we have put into the Regulations, especially Defence Regulation 18B, where the personal liberty of the subject is involved. I am a little sur-

prised that my hon. Friends who take such an interest in that subject should seek to introduce these words into a Statute dealing with Parliamentary elections.

Sir A. Southby: Why should my right hon. Friend be surprised at our taking an interest in any method which particularly concerns the subject?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I am loth to intervene in this small Debate, but the point which has arisen is rather interesting. I am sorry, Mr. Williams, that you ruled the Under-Secretary of State out of Order when he was reading the explanation of those particular words which was given by the Attorney-General, in a previous Debate. I am an ordinary man and for the life of me I cannot see that either form of wording imposes any duty on the Home Secretary personally to inquire into anything at all. Therefore I should advise the right hon. Gentleman not to take such a very high view of the particular words which he has put in the Bill, and to accept the Amendment, because it is perfectly clear that what the mover of the Amendment said in the second of his speeches is correct—"satisfied" is a much stronger word than "has reasonable cause to believe." What we in this Committee are interested in, is that the Home Secretary should be satisfied. He need not inquire personally. He has a large office with officials and he knows whom he can trust among those officials. Therefore, the personal liability of the Home Secretary is no greater whichever of these words you take. He is finally responsible to Parliament. If the Under-Secretary puts such tremendous faith in these particular words, which he has put into the Bill, then by all means let us have them, and let it be perfectly clear that the Home Secretary is more responsible in this matter than we should otherwise believe the words to imply. I should like to put it even more strongly, and say "is personally satisfied."

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): I suggest that the Committee should reject this Amendment on the ground that two words say quite well, what is is now proposed to say in five. No one in his senses could see any serious reason why the Committee should waste its time discussing this, and I think the Bill should be left as it is.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I support what my hon. Friend has just said and would express the hope that the two hon. Members on the other side, having had their quiet enjoyment and, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said, their hang-over from a previous Debate, will now be willing to let this matter rest. I think it would be wrong for the Minister, having announced that he had no intention of accepting this Amendment, now to change his mind and accept it. It is obvious that the two words "is satisfied" are quite sufficient to express the meaning which it is found essential to express, and any longer form of words which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Irving Albery) himself admitted was not as strong, should not be substituted for the words which are now in the Bill.

Mr. Mathers: The vital difference that I see between these two sets of words is in the first place that the words "is satisfied" are much firmer than "has reasonable cause to believe." We do want the Bill to be as firm as possible. The other distinction between the two sets of words is that, in my judgment, the words "is satisfied" are intended to deal with a set of circumstances that are more capable of proof than in the other case. Hon. Members will definitely weaken this Bill—where there is a much greater measure of the possibility of proof—if they bring in words that relate only to things connected with the opinion of the Home Secretary, and this Measure should be as strong as possible.

Mr. Lionel Berry: I do not agree with the last speaker. There is a question of principle involved. I support this Amendment because, on a previous occasion, the whole question was thrashed out, of which form of words is right and which is wrong. Personally, I am not satisfied myself that anyone can be satisfied unless he "has reasonable cause to believe." Are we not entitled to have some explanation, from say the Solicitor-General, who I see is listening to the Debate?

Sir I. Albery: I do not regard this matter as trivial. It may be that it is a little unfortunate that it has had to be raised on this issue, but there are very important issues at stake and we want to test these words. We have given our

view as to the meanings of the words, and the right hon. Gentleman has given his but, after all, the people who got us into this dilemma were the Law Officers of the Crown, and the least they can do is for one of them to speak now and get us out of it.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Could not both sides in this dispute be satisfied if both forms are kept in—"is satisfied" and "has reasonable cause to believe"? Than everyone will be pleased.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir I. Albery: I desire formally to oppose Clause 1, in order to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity of saying something.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question. I take it that the difficulties which have caused this Bill have arisen in connection with the ordinary constituencies and that nothing in this Bill affects the position of the electors registered at universities? An assurance on that point would give satisfaction, though I feel no doubt as to the answer.

Mr. Peake: My recollection—and I think it is pretty clear—is that the Act of 1943 had no bearing on the compilation of the register, so far as university students are concerned.

Commander King-Hall: I think I shall just be in Order on the Third Reading, in expressing my regret that this Bill does not include——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sorry but the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have any regrets on the Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."[Mr. Adamson.]

Mr. Tinker: The point I wish to deal with arises on a Question which I put to the Minister of Health on 25th May. I asked the Minister if he was aware
that the payment for rent under the supplementary old age pension is, in the case of the single person living in lodgings, being calculated as being two-thirds for rent and one-third for heating, lighting and crockery; and will he state if this is in accordance with the Assistance Board's ruling."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 25th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 931.]
The Minister of Health in his reply said that it was so, that the Assistance Board in attributing the amount to rent take into consideration the circumstances of the individual case; that is to say, if a man pays a certain amount for his lodgings then it can be sub-divided under certain heads. I will give the House an illustration of that point.
Some time ago I was in the public library at St. Helens. I would like to advise hon. Members who may want information about people who are hard up and in difficulties, to go to public libraries because these people congregate there to let off their views and to give others an idea of what is happening to them. This man asked me whether I was aware of his position. I said I was not. He said, "I am living in a common lodging house and am getting 22s. 6d. per week from the Assistance Board and my old age pension, that is, 12S. 6d. from the Assistance Board." I said, "What do you pay for your lodgings?" He said he was paying 5s. I said, "You are entitled then to 25s." That was my idea but, to be quite sure of my position, I put a Question to the Minister of Health and asked whether I was in order in giving that information. He said that this man was entitled to look upon himself as a single man living alone and was entitled to rent plus the £1 per week, but did not say definitely what the amount should be. I assumed from that answer that what the man was paying in lodgings—whatever the sum might be—would be under the heading of rent, and he would get that in addition to the £1per week which is his old age pension and supplementary pension. He might be

paying 5s. or 6s. and that would be called rent. I told old age pensioners of the ruling from the Minister of Health.
Later I met an old man and in the course of conversation I asked him his circumstances, being moved to pity for he had not a decent suit of clothes on, and his shoes were worn down, yet I knew he was respectable. I asked what he was getting by way of old age pension and he said 23s. a week, that is, 10s. old age pension and 13s. supplementary pension. I asked him where he was living and he said he was living with a woman who took in lodgers, paying 6s. a week for his lodgings. I said, "You are entitled to more than 23s. Go to the Assistance Board and tell them from me that in my view you are entitled to 6s. for rent, that is, 16s. in all from the Assistance Board." He said that he had had so much trouble over it that he did not like to face these people. However, that did not satisfy me so I took up the matter myself and I wrote to the area officer of the St. Helens district and told him that in my view, on a ruling of the Minister of Health, this man was entitled to 6s. per week for rent. He said they would examine the case again and they sent for the man and increased his allowance from 13s. to 14s., making it 24s. in all, but the officer said I was wrong in my calculation that this man was entitled to the full 6s., that the Assistance Board ruling was that this should be sub-divided and that a certain amount of the rent he paid for lodgings should be applied in other directions. He said, "In this case the ruling from my Board is that 2s., or one third of 6s., shall come under the head of lighting, heating and crockery, therefore this man is entitled only to 4s., which we are giving him. We have recommended another 1s. on your application, and have made it 24s."
I said I should have to raise this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons because I was not satisfied, but before I did that I would like to see him personally to discover the point of difference. So we met in his office and talked, and I asked if what he was doing in St. Helens was typical of the whole of the country. He said: "I believe so. I think that is the ruling of the Assistance Board, and therefore what we are doing is in keeping with the rest of the country."


I could not believe it was so, and I said, "I want to give you warning that I shall raise this by Question and answer, and if in the House of Commons we do not get full satisfaction in reply to a Question, we raise the matter on the Adjournment." This I have done, so the matter is now before the House to find out exactly what is meant. This position is deplorable. Many of these people have no regular homes, either because their homes have been broken up or because they may not have married. They may go into a common lodging house, or live apart from relatives, and have to pay 5s. or 6s. a week. I always understood that in such cases it would be said that such payments would come under the heading of rent, and would be paid by the State. I do not want it to be thought that if a man pays 10s. a week, or some such relatively high sum, he would get all that money from the State, but a reasonable sum like 5s. or 6s. should be repaid as rent. It is hard that this odd shilling or two should be taken away from supplementary pensions. I find that what I have said is the generally-accepted rule in the country, and if that is so I appeal to the Ministry of Health to review the whole position. Men who are in dire need should not be deprived of a few shillings a week which they are legitimately paying for lodgings. I have brought this matter forward in order to get the light of publicity thrown upon it. As I sat here listening to the Debate on the Finance Bill—I was not paying great attention to it because the Amendments on the Order Paper did not cause me to do so—I became aware that the Chancellor gave way on a number of points.
On directorships, he said that where there were two or more directors the increase in their fees should be excluded from Supertax. He said it would cost only £600,000 a year. If the House of Commons can grant £600,000 to well-to-do people, is it too much to ask the same House of Commons, later in the day, to give, say, £50,000 to these poor people? This House of Commons should not be a rich man's Parliament; it should be a Parliament for all our people. I imagine that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has come here to-day primed with what she has to say. I know she is sympathetic in her heart, but she has not

the power or authority to do what we would like her to do, and I wish that her chief, the Minister himself, had been here to answer this case. I am always more at home when fighting the male rather than the female. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because the hon. Member is a bachelor."] Perhaps it is that, but at any rate I am sorry that the Minister himself is not here. If the hon. Lady refuses to accept our plea I shall be indignant, but I should be far more indignant with the Minister if he were here.

Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put forward his case with his usual sincerity and eloquence, a type of case that must appeal to the hearts of every Member of this House. I am in a little difficulty about the matter, because if this contribution is to be treated wholly as rent what happens to such a contribution in the case of a lodger who is living with old-age pensioners? I then become hoist with my own petard. If the rule is that half the lodger's payment is to be regarded as rent contribution is that all the old-age pensioner is entitled to when he is living with other people? Conversely, if it is all to be treated as rent and the lodger is living with old-age pensioners, the whole amount will be deducted from the rent before they get the rent allowance. That is my difficulty. In the case of old-age pensioners who are living in lodging-houses there ought to be no question about meeting my hon. Friend's case, because it is a special type of case, in which the amenities provided are very small. After all, they will not get such a warm welcome in an ordinary lodging-house as in a private house, and there ought to be a concession as regards that part of my hon. Friend's case, especially after all the concessions we heard of earlier to-day to coal owners and directors. This concession will cost much less than the concessions to coal owners and directors.
Now I come to the point of the pensioner who was living with other people, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend. I admit there is a difficulty in that if you say if he pays rent and is living with a non-pensioner it is good for him, but that once he goes to live with a pensioner it will be bad for them all. I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary will get out of the dilemma, but I hope she will


endeavour to meet the case of old age pensioners who are living in lodging houses.

Mr. Buchanan: I, too, would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider sympathetically the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). When people live in model lodging houses—I have never been able to understand why they are called "model"—a definite charge is made for rent. It may well be that they get a little light or heat, but we are getting very near to the Micawber attitude when we start to sub-divide these little things. When we get to that stage we are becoming pernickety and miserable. Nobody can divide these things with accuracy. Not being good at anything, I always find difficulty in adding, subtracting and dividing, and most of these poor people find difficulty, too. When they come to me I say, "I cannot follow these mysteries myself, but I do know that after I have argued the case the Ministry will prove that what is being done is according to scale, and that is the end of the matter."
These people feel that in some way or other they are not getting what they are entitled to get. These pin-pricking deductions do not make anybody any happier, even the officials. I would be the last to say that the Assistance Board officials were bad men and women; they must feel the irksomeness of all this, and that what they are doing is not quite right. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Lady to make a new approach to the matter. When the Regulations were introduced the Minister of Labour made a case for abolishing the winter allowance. Few of us are as smart either as the Cabinet Ministers who pilot these Regulations through or the officials who run them. We can launch out millions at times on a particular object but, in dealing with these people, we apply the narrowest and meanest of tests.
There is another point I wish to raise with the hon. Lady. I doubt if much can be done, but I would ask her to look at this again. Under the Savings Clause, money put into a Trustee Savings Bank up to a certain figure is exempt. Will she see if she cannot get the term "Trustee Bank" extended? One or two cases have come to my notice where people

have saved money since the war but instead of putting it in a Trustee Savings Bank they went to a branch of the Clydesdale Bank or the Union Bank, where the teller was civil and courteous. The rate of interest does not matter. What they want is security and, above all, a readiness to help in little matters, so they put their money into an ordinary bank. Then the husband dies and the widow has to make a claim. The sum, though it is used in the same way as money in a Trustee Savings Bank, is treated differently. I know that it is possible to use cute dodges to get over the difficulty, by lifting the money and transferring it, but they should not have to go to that length to get what is obviously intended by the Regulations. I hope the hon. Lady will deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend about persons in lodging houses. Possibly, if the Government were more generous to old-age pensioners, we might not worry about such a little point, but it is because the margin is so narrow between want and terrible misery that we raise it. I hope the hon. Lady will look at these issues again and try to get them readjusted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I know the difficulty about the Savings Bank, but, as the hon. Member knows well, the point about these savings is that it must be new money lent to the Government. The difficulty is the difference between a Trustee Savings Bank or the Post Office Savings Bank and the banks the hon. Member has mentioned. To change it would mean legislation, but I think one can get round it. I am certain that the teller in the Clydesdale Bank would say that the money could be put into Savings Certificates or Bonds instead.

Mr. Buchanan: If it was a sum of £200 and it was in the Post Office they could lift it to pay the rent, say £3 each quarter.

Miss Horsbrugh: If they do not want to put it in a Trustee Savings Bank does not the hon. Member think that, in most cases, there is a post office fairly near the home of the pensioner? There may be cases of difficulty, but I do not think there can be any very great hardship. They could get Savings Certificates or Bonds which they could lift, but, at the same time, there is the post office, if they


wish to draw it out more quickly. The hon. Member also raised the subject of the winter allowance. There were sometimes difficulties in the beginning, but now that the scheme has been rearranged and the winter allowances are spread over the whole year I think the particular difficulties that the hon. Member refers to will have been got over.
I come to the main point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). We have to look at this from both sides. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) saw some of the difficulties himself. It has been said that these are pernickety things, and the hon. Member pointed out clearly that we want all these pernickety things in the case of a lodger living with pensioners. We call it "pernickety" and "Micawber" in one case, but if we did not do it in the other both hon. Members would be on Adjournment after Adjournment pointing out that we were not doing what we ought to do. Take, first of all, the straightforward case of an old-age pensioner getting £1 a week plus rent. That rent will be the actual rent paid for the house, but that old-age pensioner out of the £1 a week is paying for fuel, light and everything else barring the actual expenditure on rent. We have agreed to that and that is what is working nov If we did not make this difference for the person who is paying an inclusive sum for rent, light and fuel, if we were being fair to one we should be unfair to the other, who would naturally feel that he was not getting a fair deal.
We have tried to get a fair scheme, and we hoped that this scheme with the actual rent—a reasonable rent—would help us. But if we are to put under the heading of "rent" the other things that I have enumerated, naturally every pensioner is going to say he is not getting a fair deal. The £1 a week is given for everything else except the actual rent. A person who is living in a lodging house pays a sum which includes certain other things besides rent, such as fuel and light; and if it did not stop there we should get on to food next. It would not be fair to the other pensioner who is having to use his £1 a week, which is given for those expenses. He would naturally say, "In addition to the a week and the rent I also should in fairness be given the money that I spend on

fuel, light or any other things that are supplied." I think hon. Members will see what difficulties we should get into and that the £1 a week which is given separate from rent would have to be augmented if payment were given to other people in addition for fuel, light OT anything else charged in that sum. We want to get the thing fair and to treat people in such a way that they may see that it is fair.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out how difficult it is to understand the intricacies of the scheme. What we have to make clear is that in the case of the £1 a week plus rent the rent really means rent as he and I know it—the actual shelter afforded by the house. If we do what is now suggested we are going to make it more difficult for people to understand and the people who are paying for fuel and light out of the £1 a week will naturally say they are not getting a pension on the same scale as the others. I am sure that hon. Members will come forward with that exact case. I do not wish to labour the point of what it would mean if we went to that extent and then had to use the same scale when a person was lodging with a pensioner. In this scheme there is fairness between one and the other. If we depart from it we shall get into further difficulties and make it unfair and make it difficult for people to understand. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members. It is perhaps a good thing that the point has been raised. I am sure the hon. Member for Caerphilly sees the danger if we pursue this any further.

Mr. Tinker: I still think that where it is a small sum of 4s. or 5s. it ought not to be cut into.

Miss Horsbrugh: It all depends what the person is getting for his 4s. It is difficult to put the case with these hypothetical sums.

Mr. Maxton: I think the hon. Lady is wrong in saying that old-age pensioners as a whole believe this to be fair. I hope she will not go back to her chief and report that she has had a controversy with three hon. Members and left them all perfectly satisfied. Things move so rapidly that even this, which is only six months old, is already out of


date, and the old-age pensioners' conditions have deteriorated relatively since the House passed that Act. I was anxious to reintroduce the petition for a flat rate of 30s. a week for all pensioners. When I came to discuss it with one or two people who are interested in the matter I found that there was a general view that 30s.

was not now adequate. I hope that the hon. Lady, in conveying a report of this discussion to her Minister and her Ministry, will tell them that in the House there is great discontent with the whole position of old-age pensioners.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.